UKC

For all those who were delighted, infuriated, or simply entertained by the recent thread about dogs in huts, here are two very similar threads from mountian project.

The similarities between dog haters in the UK and the USA are uncanny.

Enjoy!

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/122945516/dog-rant?page=29

https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/124000850/ban-crag-dogs#ForumMe...

Oh FFS

You got handed your arse in both of those too. How do you see this going?

They sound fascinating but I'm busy hitting my big toe with a lump hammer today.

Fixed that for you

It's funny because, all joking and trolling aside, nobody handed me my arse at all--I presented arguments, facts, links, and so on, and people just presented straw man arguments, scrolled through and downvoted without reading (as they freely admitted), insulted me, or shouted hysterically. 

Nobody wins an argument by shouting londer, or posting snide internet memes.  You have something to say, say it and back it up with good reasoning.

I don't retract or back down from anything I said.

If anybody has a specific point opr agrument they want to discuss, I'm happy to respond. 

And if anybody ants to know how I actually act with my dog, just ask, and I'll answer.

From what you've posted I'd take a wild guess and say shove it in people's faces and behave like a t1t?

I particularly liked this post of yours:

"Bruno Schull · Apr 12, 2023 · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2009 · Points: 0

I really don't understand these people who bring cats to the crag.  Is it just a Boulder or southern California thing? 

Whenever there are cats at the crag, they drive me crazy.  They meow all the time, and thread back and forth between my legs while I belay, which is unsafe, and they rub their scent on my ankles, which is digusting.  Then they play with the ends of the ropes like mice.  I've even seen cats climbing standing lines and clawing the sheath and making them all fuzzy.  Climbing ropes are not cat toys--Ropes are expensive!   And the owners just sit there and laugh like their cats are so cute!

Then they pee everywhere, especially on clothes and backpacks, which is terrible, because you know how strong cat pee is--they even use the same chemicals in perfume because it stays around for so long.  I hate all my stuff smelling like cat pee.  To say nothing of the hair.  Cat hair gets everywhere, and I'm allergic.  Also hair balls.   What other animal licks its fur and then coughs up hair balls?  So gross.

More importantly, do you know cats can tansmit seriouis diseases?  There is a real risk of contracting lymphoreticulosis (Cat Scratch fever) and cytomegalovirus.  They're just unclean animals.  I can't believe people even touch them.  It's totally unethical to expose other people to these risks.

And the poop.  Don't get me started on the poop.  They poop everywhere, so I can't even bring my dog to the crag, because my dog eats the poop!  "

Literally the things you're telling people they should just put up with from dogs, but they're not ok if it's a cat. 
There's a lot still to be learned here in the UK about the american relationship with irony.

Jesus wept.

Give it a rest please.

Try simply not posting anything for 24 hours?

You said things like: (sic)

• Can you evidence that "about half" the human population feels a connection to dogs?
• Can you evidence that they're the "better half"?

If course you can't, you're just pulling crap out of where the sun doesn't shine.  Which is par for the course for idle internet discussions, but to then double down that you're presenting facts and whine at everyone else is ludicrous.

With regards my quote above, in your words from the last thread, "put up or shut up" - evidence your point or concede it, but don't whine about others calling out obvious BS when they see it.

Don't you think?

That simply isn't true. You wrote I think twice to me that dogs are the better creatures (to humans) and would never hurt children, as humans do. At the same time you completely ignored the link I provided to the fatalities from dog attacks in the UK since 2020, which included 7 children killed by dogs. 

You also ignored the second link I provided to the most recent case, over the last weekend, of a dog killing a person. 

It's funny, you said you are American originally and people carrying guns in the States scare you (seems very sensible). But your seeming complete blindness to the danger dogs occasionally present, and the fear some people have around them as a result, along with telling people scared of dogs to "put up or shut up" reminded me of American 2nd Amendment fundamentalists who just say "it's my constitutional right!" or even worse "it's my God given right!" to carry around an AR15. 

The only way to stop a bad dog with a gun is to own a good dog with a bigger gun.

Ooft, can of worms that.

If you can bring dogs to huts then I'm going to bring llamas. They have better toilet habits and only spit at unreasonable humans.

You seem determined to prove that "about half" the human population does not feel a connection to dogs. 

Here are some links about pet ownership:

https://www.gfk.com/insights/mans-best-friend-global-pet-ownership-and-feed...

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/pet-insurance/pet-ownership-statistics/

So you're right...about half the global population doesn't feel a particular connection to dogs.  I'd concede.  The correct number is about a third (33%) globally.  And of course that number changes considerably from country to country.  For example, in the US (my reference point) about half the households (45-50%) do own dogs.

In any case, 33 % is still a large percent!   It doesn't change my point at all.  Pets, especially dogs, are a part of human life, normal and natural, and everybody has to learn to live with them.

I would say that you've won the battle but lost the war.

Maybe that guy who's obsessed with proving that groups of drunk soccer fans don't kill children will chime in next?

Love it!  I'm all for lamas at huts.  Remarkable creatures, well-adapted to the alpine.

So long as you dont bring Alpacas.

Weird things. They just turn their heads and stare!

I'm glad you liked my post on MP. I do hope you realize I was poking gentle fun at cat people, and exploiting the terrible divide between dog people and cat people for the sake of laughs. 

For the record, I love cats.  I grew up in the country, and at one time we had 18 cats.  There are pictures of me asleep as an infant surrounded by an arrat of half-wild cats of different colors, white, black, tabbny, calico, and so on.

Cats are great.  It's just that dogs are so, so, so much better

Part # 2 Wintertree...if you take the global percent of dog ownership at 33 % and then add the people who like dogs but who don't own one for whatever reason (logistics, expense, and so on) then you're coming dangerously close to the "about half" I originally mentioned.

Maybe you lost the battle and the war?

As for dog lovers being the better half, well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'm afriad. That's juts my feeling, as I indicated.

Come to think of it, who knows, maybe there is some psychology research about the  differences between pet owners and non pet owners, or dog owners and no dog owners?  I'll do some digging, and as you cna immagine, I'll post finindings here, if any.

That said, there's good evidence that pet owners are healthier than non pet owners: dog, cats, birds, llamas, and so on...there's good for your health! 

And apparently that's in spite of all those vdogs bites and terrible diseases transitted by filthy canine beasts. 

I picked you up on two points.  You were wrong on one and ignored the other.  You’re not doing a very good job of defending your statements.  

 

Not sure how you've worked that out.

It's been a while since we've seen such a textbook game of pigeon chess.

OK wintertree, what exactly is your point?

I have provided links showing that at least 33 % of the global population owns dogs.  When you add in another fraction of people who like dogs but don't own one, you're likely above 40% of people globally that feel a connection to dogs. Do you dispute these figures, or do you want to quibble about the numbers to distract from your rhetorical failings?

As for our second point, my contention that dog-owners are the "better half" that's obviously just my opinion, but we could back that upm with facts.

First, there's a great deal of evidence that pet owners (dog, cat, bird, whatever) are healthier and happier than non-pet owners.

Second, there's evidence that dog owners have more positive and pro-social psychological traits compared to cat owners.

"The general pattern that comes out of both studies is that dog owners are more social, interactive, and accepting, and cat owners (who own cats exclusively) are more introverted, self-contained, and less sociable."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/canine-corner/201002/personality-...

So, if pet owners are healthier and more sociable than non-pet owners...and dog owners are more pro-social than cat owners...then dog owners are the better half.

My off the cuff assertion was indeed correct.

If you're serious, dispute the numbers and research.

Numbers and logic?

Something that cats are far better at than dogs to get back on "track".

Pigeon messes with them and its lunch.

Yes, which is not "about half" as you had claimed, so you were wrong.  And that's before accounting for the difference between a "household" and a "person", which opens up a further gaping hole.

No, you can't.  

As evidenced by a copy and paste from a non peer-reviewed pop psych website?

Sorry but I'm too busy pissing laughing uncontrollably right now.

Going back to the previous thread:

In reply to a previous poster saying:

• According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_Kingd... 1 there have been 18 fatalities in the UK caused by dogs since 2020 - I said I remembered reading the stories in the last few years. Of those 18, 7 were children, mostly babies it seems.

You replied that:

I don't see the point in bringing rational, logic or evidence to the table to someone who denies violence on humans by a minority dogs and has the position that "canines are far superior beings".

I love the "I would do it but I'm too busy right now argument."  It basically means, I can't do it because it's impossible.  Good luck finding data to support your points, whatever they may be!

As for your second point, my statement that dogs are the superior species was obviously tongue in cheek, but, of course, I wouldn't expect you to pick up on nuance, irony, or humor.   

Nonetheless, I do beleive that dogs superior to humans in many respects, such as loyalty, empathy, the capacity to feel joy, to move beyond hardship, and so on. 

Of, but I forgot, thery're just animals...no sense trying to understand their minds.

No, the argument was "I call you out on being wrong, you agreed you were wrong, then you declared you'd won the war, so there is no way I can rationally engage with you, but I could take a laugh at the self righteous indignation".

Okay, it's a sentiment you had conveyed many times in may ways, so that's an odd kind of nuance, irony or humour.  When you said " Dogs would never treat children like that--canines are far superior beings." I struggle to see how denying the killing of children by dogs could be considered nuance, irony or humour.  Hanging something ironic off a denial of fact does not extend to making the denial of fact ironic.  It's just tasteless, frankly.

So when you say dogs are superior you're being ironic but you're not being ironic you're giving your truthful opinion.

You seem confused.

As far as I can tell, nobody has said that at any point.  There's an old English phrase uttered on walking in to a bar you might find helpful should you ever visit.  "Come and 'ave a go if you fink you're 'ard enouf".  You seem to be trying to start more arguments to avoid conceding a loss on the previous ones...

I was in the half of humanity that loved dogs for 18 years. Now the poor old thing has died I've flipped and it's as if I've emerged from a cult.

That's when it dropped to a third! 

I really don't want to get drawn into this but your link doesn't actually say this.  Your link says 'On average, one third (33%) of households globally have a dog'.  You've added the 'at least' phrase.  But, the biggest hole in your logic is (as Wintertree pointed out already) the jump from 'household' to 'global population'.

From what I can see ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_households ) there are approx 2.2B households worldwide, and approx of 7.5B people.  Number of dogs worldwide is estimated anywhere between 470M and 900M.  You can arrange these numbers any way you want but there is no way to prove (mathematically) that 'likely above 40% of people globally that feel a connection to dogs'.  You can state it as an opinion, but it doesn't add any quantitative weight to your position.

Hi wintertree!  What a great correspondence we have initiated! 

I love the English bar quotes: are you portraying yourself as an English bar room brawler?  That's rich, coming from somebody who's afriad of dogs.  A keyboard tough guy.

Once again, I said that about half the global population feels a special bond to dogs.  I think I've showed that estimate to be roughly correct.  Your point about households has some merit, but I think "households" is a good proxy for "people."  If you think about it closely, you'll see why this is true.  Do you have any data to back up a counterpoint?   Find a source and produce a number.  Otherwise, you're just pontificating.

Second, I said that dogs are superior beings.  That was toungue in cheek (did my use of the word "beings" give you any clue?)  Do I actually think dogs are superior?  In some areas, yes, in others, no.  This is self-evident. 

Third, what are you actually trying to show with your data about dog fatalities?  Are a small minority of dogs dangerous to humans?  Of course they are.  Any animal, including humans, poses a threat.  I have not argued otherwise.

I did say that I think crowds of drunk soccer fans are more dangrous than dogs. 

Is there any data to back this up?  Yes, there is. 

Look up the population of the UK, and the murder rate.  Then look at the dog population, and the number of human fatalities caused by dogs. 

In the UK, the incidence of humans killing humans is about an order of magnitude higher than the incidence of dogs killing humans. 

As above, do you have any data or real arguments to show the contrary?  Of course not. 

You're just setting up strawman arguments to avoid the larger truth that you are wrong, and way out of your depth.

Stop hounding brunoschull.  Even if they are barking up the wrong tree.

2.2B households

7.5B people

Oooh, look out. Bruno said "strawman". Must be really good at arguing. Only people who are really good at arguing say "strawman"

Threads like this are one of my guilty pleasures. It's like Jeremy Kyle for climbers. What's next, demanding lie detector tests?

In other words, he's spouting bollox

Should be 'straw dog', surely...?

Where did I say that?  Hint: I didn’t.  I like most of the dogs I meet, I go to talk to one neighbour’s dog over the garden wall most days and give him scratches behind the ears, and I let most of the local dogs sniff my hand when we pass on walks etc.  I take issue with a very small minority of dog/owner pairs I meet and that tends to be accommodating - I don’t mind them jumping up in a friendly way but if they go for my food, or my child, I’m not afraid to intervene promptly and forcibly.

I’m curious - are you deliberately misrepresenting me to try and point score, or are you not paying attention?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/dogs_thread_part_two-758952?v=1...

You were hanging it off a denial of claims dogs sometimes kill children.  It struck me as too tasteless a point for humour.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I didn’t need more than a cursory “order of magnitude estimate” in my head to bin your claim as nonsense.  I hinted at the gaping holes in your approach above and the poster I have linked to above goes in to more detail.  As a STEM teacher (your call to authority on the previous thread) I’d expect you to be able to sense check figures with a bit of logic and some OOM estimates.  It’s never to late to learn.

You seem confused.  I’ve never mentioned humans killing humans, or has nothing to do with the points I’ve made.  I was calling you out for denying something, not trying to play Top Trumps over unnecessary causes of death or injury to children.  

Round and round and round we go

Where it stops, nobody knows 

Like a dog chasing its tail?

Well, I’m out as I’m off to see the neighbour’s dog.

Hi Dave, thanks for your posts--I mean that.  At least you're actually making real arguments, unlike the rest.

We're obviosuly not going to ever have comlete census of the human population regarding their preference for dogs--that data just doesn't exist.  All we have are different sample groups and estimates. 

I think hosueholds is a good proxy for people because, essentially, young people are generally on their way to being a household, and older people have "graduated" from a household.  About 30 percent of people globally are single, but, depending on the study, they can count as a household, too. Also, plenty of single people who might not count as a household have dogs.

So, bearing this in mind, I think that "household" is a good general proxy for "people." 

This is a good point for debate, of course, but, to turn it around, I'd ask you,  if 33% of households globally have a dog, where would you place an estimate at the percentage of people around the world who feel connected to dogs, or, more simply, like dogs?  

I'm betting that is close to 40-50% which is what I said initially. 

There's a reason they bring dogs into care homes and hospitals, and a reason why households with children have an even higher percentage of dogs--which is telling, considering that dogs have ben painted as child killing beats by several posters.

I liked your last post wintertree.  Spending time with dogs is always ggood for the soul.

Pro dog nutters are much more fun than antivax nutters. More than half the world thinks this.

You've made much abour my denial of the statistics about dog fatalities.  I never denied that dogs cause fatalities.  You choose to missread my words to make a point.

I assert that humans are more dangerous than dogs.

Population of UK: about 67.3 millions

Numbers of murders in UK in 2022: 696

Population of dogs in UK: about 12.5 million

Number of human fatalities caused by dogs in UK: 18

(18 is a high number, other sources show far lower numbers)

Do the math.

The incidence of humans killing humans is about an order of magnitude higher than the incidence of dogs killing humans. 

We should be more afriad of dogs than humans.

In terms of superiority, I claimed that dogs are superior to humans in some ways, but not all.  To deny otherwise is obtuse.  Sense of smell?  Sense of hearing?  And so on.  Of course, I also think that dogs rival or surpass humans in other dimensions, such as loyalty, empathy, and so on. 

And of course, I'm not the only one.  There's a reason dogs are the most popular pet in the world.

eating sh1t

He is a good dog with a big gun

Your previous posts were clear.  You repeatedly denied that there are valid reasons for people to be scared of dogs.  You continue to ignore the point made by others about child deaths at the hands of dogs and you keep trying to burry the relative prominence of that number with whole population statistics.  You focus only on death when there’ve been 22,000 reported injured by dog attack in the last year [1] in the UK and who knows how many more unreported and near misses.  You mock those who disagree with you as “afraid of dogs” in the absence of any evidence.  You seem completely oblivious to the idea that many of the people who are take issue with a minority of dogs and owners are actually dog owners themselves.  

The only facts you will admit and have finally put some effort in to finding - if not referencing (tut, tut) are over deaths.  I don’t believe a single poster on either thread has claimed dogs kill more people than people, nor does that commonly known fact change any of the points anyone else has made. Here’s a counter - how many people are eaten by their dogs, and how many are eaten by other people?  A quick news search suggests dogs are a far greater risk in terms of being eaten.  I’m not going to play that as an anti dog card but by your approach I probably should…

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64798162.amp

You keep saying stuff like that, but actually you just seem to be ignoring any point you haven't got a response to. Now you're saying that of course dogs occasionally kill people but you said precisely the opposite on the old thread. You've never explained your "put up or shut up" comment to people who are scared of dogs, but say others are trolling and you're making "real arguments". You ignored the statistics showing deaths from dog attacks in the UK that I provided, and you keep changing slightly your claim about the danger presented to children by soccer fans, sometimes drunk, sometimes nationalistic, sometimes Indonesian. By the way I've read no suggestions that alcohol was a factor in the Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster - not really surprising in a very Muslim country. It seems the investigation has focused on the police use of tear gas, but I don't think you're really interested in the facts - as you said you just pulled the first link you found on Google that somehow you seem to think supports your point.

All your climbing contributions here have always seemed very sensible and knowledgeable but on this subject, it's one of the more bizarre and least effective examples I've seen of how to have an argument/discussion on an internet forum ever! I get that you really love dogs, but really? 

I did google dogs shooting people and I have changed my mind now.

I am now suspicious half the gundogs in the world have been secretly trained by PETA.

...

...

It isn't 33% globally, it's 33% in the 22 out of 195 countries included in the article.

And then there's the humming.  (They can never remember the words.)
youtube.com/watch?v=d62x_OMFZGM&

But that’s only a tenth of countries approximately so the number of people that have a connection to dogs must be at least 330%? 

Also seemingly missing out all of Africa and countries with massive populations like India and pretty much anywhere in SE Asia. In other words it tells you almost nothing about global dog ownership. 

It also tells you nothing about global attitudes towards dogs which is not all cuddles and walkies. 

Bruno - I think you might have to conced this one, I think my dogs got a better grasp of stats....

So you agree with them that dogs are superior to humans?

...and if you're really lucky, pronking 

Do I really need to point out to you that, if you expand the dog numbers to injuries and fatalities, you would have to do the same for humans?  Can you imagine how many more humans cause injuries to humans, comapred to dogs causing injuries to humans?  By any metric, humans are far more dangerous and deadly than dogs.

As for the percent of global population who likes dogs, you can look at the numbers any way you want, but you take any sample of people in the US, UK, whatever, about half of them are going to like dogs.  I concede that there are countries where people do terrible things like eat dogs--China, Korea--but that only proves my point; people are far more barbaric than dogs.

As for the put up and shut up comment that folks seem so upset about, it's common sense.  The numbers of pets owners and dog owners isn't going to change.  Hence learn to put up with dogs or shut up--you are fighting an uphill battle. 

Despite the hysteria and hand wring from a small minority, dogs are a great, healthy, fulfilling part of life, which add to human society far more than any risk they represent, a perspective supported by our own evolution and history, and by present society. 

Thus far, nobody has presented any real facts to the contrary. 

Seeing as people continue to post anti-dog rants on climbing sites, I speak up in defence of man's best friend.

As an alternative, I offer the Skitalk Dog Pic thread: 150 pages (and counting!) of dog love. 

https://www.skitalk.com/threads/the-dog-pic-thread.54/

Enjoy!

You seem obsessed with a hierarchy of blame when it comes to people being injured or killed (but not, as I said, eaten).  Literally nobody else on these threads have made a point about relative risk.  Any one cause of injury or death can be isolated and reduced to the point it’s smaller than some other aggregate cause.  That doesn’t wave it away, excuse it or make it deniable (as you have previously done, repeatedly).

Thereby entirely missing the nuanced but fundamentally clear point that it’s largely not anti-dog rants but rants about the consequences of ***** owning dogs and taking them to public places without a clue of the very real and undeniable consequences for others.  Given your sticking to your “put up or shut up” comment I can guess where you fall in the broad spectrum of dog owners.

Most of them can lick their own arses clean. Just imagine being free from the tyrant of Big Toilet Paper.

Nobody has presented any facts to the contrary because nobody is arguing to the contrary. The only place these threads have been anti dog is in your head.

Not anti-dog rants. But rants against f**kwit dog owners who refuse to control their dogs.

It's not the dog's fault.

The combative nature of this thread is brilliantly weird, literally no one has posted an anti dog rant on this thread or the last one, 

Almost everyone you are arguing with here likes dogs or at least is dog ambivalent. Thinking huts are inappropriate for dogs, or that dogs should be kept under control around other people, and indeed other dogs is not anti dog. 

Debunking bizarre pseudo scince from hasty Googleing is not anti dog. 

And realy... "no one has presented any facts to the contary" I'm not sure you've presented any actual "facts" yet!

My dog would lick my arse clean.

I love these threads because, eventually, people's true personalities emerge.

I find that the dog haters generally fall into several overlapping groups.  To visualize these groups, I imagine something like an enormous Venn diagram in the sky.

There's is a bubble we could label fear and dread: these people see dogs and think: Danger!  Risk!  Big teath! 

Then there is the bubble we could label responsability and entitlement: these people see dogs and immediately get triggered about how others should or should not be controling their dogs, their own private space, their right to move through the world unimpeded and unmolested, and so forth.

Then there is the bubble we could label squeeemishness and disgust.  These people love to mention dog poop, dogs licking their asses, and so on.  This group seems so fixated on poop and assholes that it's almost a fetish--what's going on here?

And finally there is the group that we could label selfishness and coldness.  These people view dogs, and often children, as burdens which should be kept in their place, preferably as far away from possible.  They prefer to live life alone, rather than form deep social attachments to empathetic creatures. 

And in the middle, in a terrible nexus of all four categories, the pulsing heart of dog hatred, you have the folks on MP and UKC who come together regularly to process their fears, anxieties, paranoias, resentments, and angers about dogs.  It's like a support group, or a therapy session.  

They try to backtrack.  They say it's about the owners not the dogs.  They protest that in fact they love dogs.  But eventually, in good time, they will start talking about dogs eating children's faces, or dogs eating poop, or dog hair, or whatever. 

And the rest of the world just continues to enjoy dogs, and the many beenfits to body and mind that they bring.  That's about all there is to it.

Concede?  You've clearly never watched a game of pigeon chess.

Mind you, I think the OP strutting in to take a victory lap at the very beginning and including links to previous triumphs on another forum (pieces all over the floor and shit all over someone else's board) might actually be a first for UKC.

Ah, so you do understand irony!

As I said before, I maintain a short section of land with a public right of way on it.  In a typical year, I remove several dozen dog turds in the spring before other users of the land identify and round on the culprit.  I don't get paid to maintain the PROW, I do it as an act of kindness to those who enjoy using it, reciprocity if you like.  Poops keep cropping up through the summer.  Left unabated other people's dogs eat them or roll in them, and then their owners get really irate.

If I mention dog poop, it's because a small minority of local dog owners cause a disproportionate amount of mess in my orchards.  How would you like to clean dog s**t out of your lawn mower a dozen times a year, or have neighbours complaining that their kids tracked it in to their houses?

It's not my true nature being revealed here; I am endlessly patient at cleaning it up and gently engaging with the dog owners.  It's the true nature of the minority of owners who simply do not give a care in the world, who simply can not empathise with the hassle they cause to others.

Nobody has tried to backtrack.  They hold nuanced positions, something you're apparently utterly unable to comprehend.

Both come in to play, but the responsibility, the blame and the legally enforceable obligations lie with the owner.

That does't make much sense.

That's incredibly emotional language that denigrates the real horrors and has no parallel to anything anyone on here has said.  People have noted that some children are killed by dogs despite your earlier denials.  

I have neighbours complaining to me that their dogs ate poop on the PROW when it was left by someone else's dog.  I'm not paid to clean it up.  This is dog owners complaining by the way about other dog owners, a nuance you seem to fail to grasp.

You're so right...

Absolutely not.

For my last act of the evening, I've decided to become a UKC supporter, just so I can post pictures of my pooch on threads like this!

Here she is, Luna, a border collie labrador mix, or, as my family and I say, a very rare breed, called a borador. 

20 kg of pure love.  Wouldn't bite a human if her life depended on it.  She may run up to you for loves and cuddles, however.

Thanks for all the contributions so far!

How apt.

Not my dislikes; she's a nice-looking dog. But I don't want, or need, her 'loves and cuddles'. I suggest you keep them for yourself.

https://xkcd.com/386/

Bedtime everyone!

Cheers

Toby

I am off to walk my dog.

https://xkcd.com/1614/

I think we all need to admit we are in this category.

https://xkcd.com/1552/

I am also feeling justified here although my peta gundog theory.

https://xkcd.com/1252/

From one dog lover to another, please please please don’t think like that.  

Maybe it can do Ju-jitsu?

Do you normally use a different internet to this one ? 

do you normally use a different UKC to this one ?

I regret not having the time or inclination to look at the dogs in huts thread as it was probably quiet entertaining.

let me guess . You think that you should be able to take tutor dog into huts and the people who don’t like dogs should just suck it up ? This went backwards and forwards and round in circles  ?

I love my dog . He’s curled up at my feet as I drink my morning coffee and type this right  now  

one of my friends doesn’t like dogs . Lots of people don’t like dogs  . I try to empathise with this because there are lots of things I don’t like . trying to empathise with other humans feelings is very important . I suspect you struggle with that . 

Hi Mike--welcome to the discussion.  Glad you love dogs. 

The threads about dogs in huts is indeed entertaining.

While I like the idea of dogs in huts in principle, I wrote hat whether or not I took my dog to a hut would depend on lots of things, like the rules, the aproach, the crowds, the season, the accomodations, and so on.

For example, a dog at a hut like the Cosmiques would be ridiculous.  A dog at the Albert Premeir hut might work, especially if it was a hut dog owned by the guardians.  And I've stayed in several huts in Spain that could easily work with dogs (sleeping berths upstairs, simple wooden steps leading down to warm, cozy, dining room downstairs where dogs could sleep, and so on). 

But as a general rule, I think dogs in huts would be problematic, for lots of reasons.

There was talk of llamas and alpacas, though.  Llamma as and alpacas at huts?  Now that's an idea I can get behind! 

As for my general empathy and respect for others, I think many people have made assumptions about how I interact with others and my dog.  That's fine--its the internetm, after all.

What I take umbrage with is the hysterical ranting about the problems with dogs, and the thinly veiled dog hatred masquerading as civic responsability. 

And so I choose to defend the beasts.

Let us join our hands (or paws) in union and welcome another day of dog dispute!

that’s not what I said . I said I love my dog . Most others I either barely tolerate or dislike .

you should definitely keep posting . If people do t like it they should change channel . 

me too . 

That’s what many people use the internet for . As somebody once  said “ most men led  lives of quiet desperation . And then they invented the internet . “

No one: "I hate dogs"

Everyone: "Inconsiderate dog owners are the problem"

Bruno: "You all hate dogs. Mine is impeccable. If you have a problem with me and my dog it's your problem"

How's your thread going fella? Clue: there are little arrows that can sometimes help you gauge opinion.

Most, if not all of the hysterical ranting on these threads has been yours. You made a couple of silly comments, got called out on them then doubled down and responded by accusing the other commenters of hysteria and dog hate. You're your own man but if I were you I'd walk away from this and chalk it up to experience.

I love the passive agrresive use of "fella."  Another keyboard tough guy.

The arrows are meaningless--as some body else admitted on the other thread, they dont even read the posts, they just scroll through and downvote.

It's a popularity game.  I don't really care what the dog haters think of me--is that why you're all so angry?

You make it sound as if this was some kind of bruising and humbling experience for me--on the contrary, it's been quite enjoyable!  That's why I started the thread.  I've been well versed in the ways of the dog haters over on MP--compared to that community, you guys play with kid gloves. 

Also, nobody has really provided a well-reasoned counterpoints to my main assertion, once again, that dogs are a great, healthy, fulfilling part of life, which add to human society far more than any risk they represent, as evidenced by our own evolution and history, and the great benefits dogs bring to a large proportion of people worldwide.

Can anybody honestly argue with that? 

Donald Trump has a lot to answer for.

As I said above,  nobody will take you up on that because nobody on this thread really holds that view. You think it's the general view of some on this thread but it isn't. A good tip for better online interaction it to respond to the points being made not the outrage they generate in your head.

It's mainly you who doesn't appear to be reading the posts. I mean your list of types Dog Haters was bizarre - positively Trumpian circa November 2020 - "I won! Everyone else is wrong! Here is the list of my enemies!"

Are all the dog haters funded by Soros or just some of them? And Brad, can you find me just another 11,000 people who agree with me? I just need 11,000 more...

Here are some more pics of Luna to spread the love.

In no particular order, stalking humans on a walking path near you, sleeping on the sofa, sleeping on the bed.

Hi TobyA,

Since you brought up Trump, I can't resist the following:

I'm not at all surprised there are so many anti-social dog-haters on UKC--you guys voted to leave the EU out of a sense of British superiority.  Glad that worked our well for you.

Wait. So disliking dogs correlates with voting for brexit?

Thats what I love about UKC. Get to learn new things every day.

Admittedly some are false but lets look on the positive side.

"Wait. So disliking dogs correlates with voting for brexit?"

No Mondite, that's a step too far, even for me.  It was just a barb directed at TobyA, because he invoked the Great Orange Monster.

Then again...dog owners are shown to be very pro-social...and brexit was a very anti-social statement, so perhaps it holds water?

There's only one problem with dogs. They bark. They stink. They're uncontrollable.

Oops, thats three

I'm trying so hard not to engage with this thread because it's become quite unhealthy, but then you mentioned the 'B' word.....I think you're preaching to the converted on that one. That was voted for by a small majority of UK (without the C) voters and has been an unmitigated disaster. Most on here would agree I think 

I I think it’s fair to say that the majority of people who were on here at the time didn’t vote for brexit . Bit I think you probably know that. You must be very very bored . Keep it up . 

Can we please get over this idea that not wanting dogs around = “hate”? 

Don't forget they also eat sh1t. Which is useful for the OP as he does seem to produce a lot.

Can we all breathe a sigh of releif that we're not talking abotu dogs anymore?

We're just talking about Trumpy Trump and Brexit! 

We've truly stooped low when these topics feel like a releif.

Nonetheless, I think it's only fair that if I get accused of being a Trump figure I get to accuse the accuser of being a Brexit supporter.  Fair is fair!  Two wrongs make a right!

Yes, of course, I am aware that the majority of people on this site are probably not in favor of Brexit or Trump--thank god.

I think it's quite telling that Trump was one of the very few presidents that did not bring a dog into the white house--in my view, this really reflects on his (lack of) character.

At the same time, one of Biden's shepeards had to be removed from te white house, I beleive, after biting somebody.

So there's some presidential ammunition for your battle to curb dogs, litterally and figuratively!

I know that's only meant as some banter, but again you seem to have completely misread the room. There are a very few people on UKC who have consistently supported Brexit - almost bravely, although I think their arguments are hopelessly wrong. But the standard view is that UKC forums are liberal elite remoaner love-in. You'll do well to find many Leavers, just like good luck with finding the mythical dog haters!  :⁠-⁠) 

Cute doggy by the way.

Indeed. I've never understood why dogs being encouraged to 'kiss' humans has ever become acceptable.

See!  I am proven right, yet again.

Not more than a few posts have passed, and once again people start bringing up dog poop, dog's licking their asses, and so forth. 

Clearly, you belong in the "squeemishness and disgust" circle of the Venn diagram I described above.

But you really do seem fixated on poop--are you the ones responsabile for the existence of coprophilia fitish sites? 

In your honor, I've attatched a pictures of Luna eating treats from my daughter's mouth.

Yuk.

I know, right?

Poop is so gross.  I don't know why so many people here just keep talking about it.  Weird fetish.

I for one have read both threads as they have gone along and I'm afraid to say I'm one of your downvoters. Not all the comments by any means but a reasonable % at least. I can't work out if you're a bad troll trying too hard to make the thread go mental or genuinely unable to see anyone else's perspective. Either way not really my issue.

FWIW I grew up with a dog who was lovely and have no issue with them per se. There's plenty I like in them. That said, I like them on my terms. I've had a dog come at me very aggressively in the past and it earned it a good boot. If I could have found it's owner they would possibly have got one too.

The same as so many things in life It's a persons choice to have a dog. They can do whatever they like with it as long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

edit- punctuation

There's a grave danger not correctly distinguishing the rightfull place (role) of dogs in society - and thats not just a question of hygiene.

However, the same errors of judgment are commonly made w r t smartphones and it's a sure thing there are more smartphone owners than dog owners on the planet ...

edit: I was thinking of developed nations; prob the inverse in developing nations

That smartphones lick their own arses?

Impressively mental posting spree this, like proper lunatic stuff. Love it.

Today's Guardian has the answer to this conundrum

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/25/how-do-you-put-a-new-...

Question is will they go back to mountain project for round 3?

It's wild, isn't it? I genuinely can't work out if he's a genius troll or an absolute madman. Perhaps even Shia LaBeouf in an immersive theatre project? Or just some on wicked strong drugs, in which case I'm curious to know where he lives...

Just wanted to let you know we're back at it over on MP--come join the party!

Already has...
https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/124083997/another-dogs-thread-w...

First three threads were "just a flesh wound", presumably.

Crivens. Hats off to you Shia, this sort of commitment to The Method is pretty impressive.

Oh give it a rest. You're embarrassing yourself now 

That happened a while back. There's a word for a type of personality who shows little/no empathy for others or values their opinions. Git?

Seriously contemplating having my dog put down. 

Some dog owners are ferkin mental, maybe the dog kissing has transmitted some brain altering disease like cats

I would like to share an anecdote with you

I've lived in Switzerland for the last 15 years.  Near my house, in a medium city, is a forested walking path beside a stream, frequented by joggers, elderly, families, children, and, of course, dog walkers.  There is no leash laws, so there are lots of dogs running around.  There aren't too many disputes becasue, as you know, Swiss people have a reputation for restraint. There's also a lot of poop, but they provide nice little bags to pick it up with, so everything stays neat and tidy. 

Often, when walking Luna, I encounter groups of kindergarten or pre-school kids  with their minders.  As I mentioned, interacting with dogs is one of the items on the teaching syllabus for kids here, so I always take the opportunity to introduce them to Luna.  I put her on her leash, ask her to sit, and invite the kids to come for kisses and cuddles.  Usually, we end up with a bunch of children petting and stroking her, smiles and laughs all around, and so on. Good feelings.

Then there is the local British kindergarten.  The poor children are pushed around in these massic, plastic buggy things, in bright colors, that look like oversize cartoon childrens' toys.  Each one carries about 6-8 kids.  All the kids have to wear green safety vests, as do the minders.  Needless to say, they are not allowed to get down from the prams to explore the path and grassy slopes, splash in the stream, or, God forbid, pet dogs!  They always look so sad to me, with so many healtth and saftey regulations that they can't just be kids.  It's really a terrible commentary on the Brits. 

That's how I feel when I read all these posts--I feel bad for you guys.  I see you all sitting there, safe and protected in your great big plastic cars, wearing your colored saftey vests, hurling insults at people whose views you don't share.  It's sad. 

To make you all feel better, I've included a picture of her below.  She's out with me on an easy ski tour, which is great fun. Maybe if you had more experiences like this, you would all be happier people?

Cheerio!

That's all we have been asking for... restraint.

By your logic, you've just outed yourself as a dog-hater.

Well, you can improve our situation here by shutting up!

Hi Gravy--are ytou kidding me? I'm doing fine here.  Do you realize how ridiculous you all seem?  Do you realize all the insults you have hurled in my direction?  It's pretty funny.  I've never met a bunch that was easier to trigger!  I'm having a grand time! 

Here's another picture of Luna so you can all dream about her while you sleep.

Is that a dog turd you’ve kicked under the settee?  

Poop again!  You guys just can't stop bringing up poop! 

Who knew that the British climbing scene was so obsessed with shit?

Should try climbing at Stanage, plenty of poop left around up there (lots of it human)

Mine has big scary teeth too (I'm hoping for bonus points, dog, on furniture, in a camper van)

To be fair to BC, he did have a very traumatic wilderpoo incident involving his furry friend. 

Oh God...I'd forgotten all about that story!  Thanks for reminding me...

Yes, it is astonishing how tolerant we are of canine toilet functions - right out in public view.

But things can get worse. I got into big trouble with my sentimental sister when visiting once. All I did was shout and cuff the beast. It is privileged to publicly express itself in daily workouts on a shagging cushion, in the kitchen. My crime or the dog's ?

In our culture we proudly display our dogs' leavings. It's customary to pick them up delicately and hang them from the highest branch you can reach.

Yours! Who has a shagging cushion? Who keeps a shagging cushion in the kitchen???

It's society's crime...

Hi LeeWood,

First, I need some British to American translation--did this terrible animal relive itself on a shagging cushion in the kitchen?  Or did this virile beast "shag" a coushion in your kitchen?  No jest; I honestly don't know how to interpret your words.  Is there some British household decoration knwon as a shagging cushion?  It would be pretty funny if this were the case.  For example, in the US, we have shag carpets, which must make Brits smile.

If it's the latter, and the dog was humping a cushion, well, I congratulate you--just when we all thought it couldn't get any worse, you bring dog sexuality into the equation, a topic which, if my memory serves, has not yet been discussed.  This is becoming thoroughly entertaining. 

To answer your question, I think it all depends on the nature of your action: did you deliver a sort of shove or push, accompanied by a stern "No!"?  Or was it more of a strike or punch delivered to inflict pain?  More broadly, what system applies here: your house your rules?  Or it's you sister's pet and therefore you can't touch it (much as you might apply with children)?

These are subleties best hashed out with your sibling--as I have a sister myself, and am all too familiar with familial disputes, I wish you the best of luck.

Last, I think earlier in this discussion you brought up the question of the correct place or role of dogs in soceity.

You wrote:

"There's a grave danger not correctly distinguishing the rightfull place (role) of dogs in society

If I may, what do you beleive is the correct role or place of dogs in society? 

How did I miss this!  Great looking little pooch.

Definitely get extra points for the wide, toothy, yawn, the position on the shagging bed, and the proximity to storage/kitchen.

Jesus wept!  Have you seen a doctor about that?

Its fine. Just means he needs to refine his carnivore diet a bit.

Not me - it's the choice of my sentimental sister !

I would do the same.

What I do find unreasonable, and it was discussed in the other thread, is those who are scared of a dog off the lead where the dog isn't demonstrating any aggressive behaviour and want to use the law to claim that because they are scared, the dog can be considered out of control.

I'm sure there will be a word for this particular fetish but that it even entered your head during chat about a dog humping a cushion tells us a lot about you. That doesn't make you a bad person though.

That’s me back in therapy again.. 

Well, I just like to be precise about language, and consider all sides of an issue

In case you weren't aware, we've had shag pile in the UK from the early 60's, not long after it became popular in the USA.  It was first known in ancient greece and there's a theory that it found it's way around the world as a result of the British Empire.  

God, you really are like a dog with a bone aren't you. 

Funnily enough you have just admitted to doing something that the vast majority of the "hysterical" people are asking of you, have some common sense and control your dog in a situation where it may present danger or anxiety to people around it, or the people (children in this scenario) themselves may do something strange to trigger your dog - you never know what may cause this and is often the case that a child will get a bit too excited and the dog may act out in a way it never has before - this CAN happen with ANY dog.  

You jumped in two footed telling people who are afraid of dogs to grow up and deal with it when what the vast majority were asking was for dog owners to bare some responsibility in this process, which it looks, credit where credit is due, on the face of it you do do. I just do not get your obsession with trying to argue this now to the nth degree that all dogs are good, all people afraid of dogs needed to get over it when surely you can admit there is a vast scale between a good dog owner and a bad dog owner - and the result of a bad dog owner is likely to result in a bad dog, more people with differing levels of fear for dogs and then more of a prejudice to new dogs they encounter in the future. 

For what it's worth my father had to have extensive facial reconstruction surgery after an unprovoked dog attack in his youth, I would love for you to tell him his fear is irrational and if he were to just bend down avert his eyes etc. etc.  

And just to throw my side of it in, I used to regularly look after a Malinois and a German Sheppard sometimes for months on end, lovely animals and the softest of the soft with everybody - now to tell me that a normal human response to those two animals bounding towards them wouldn't be slight trepidation then I think you are slightly delusional. They are big working dogs and in the wrong hands could cause serious damage to either other dogs or people. Guess what, I just ensured they were kept on a leash or close heel unless we were in open fields with no animal or human in sight - problem mostly solved, however if somebody were to say do you mind just making it sit whilst I come past on the path I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to accommodate the other persons needs - it is my choice to be in that location with a dog, not theirs. 

Oh  no!  Just when we were getting a good conversation going about shagging ijn kitchens you have to come in and make everything serious again! 

Actually, I think you and I agree pretty much about everything you wrote.

God, you really are like a dog with a bone aren't you. Some notes below.

"...surely you can admit there is a vast scale between a good dog owner and a bad dog owner - and the result of a bad dog owner is likely to result in a bad dog, more people with differing levels of fear for dogs and then more of a prejudice to new dogs they encounter in the future."

I absolutely agree with you.  I also have big issues with people who have dogs and don't provide them adequate walks in nature, off leash if possible, lots of exercise, mental stimulation, social time with other dogs and other people, and so on.  To me, these are the real bad dog owners--the ones who don't treat their dogs well.

For what it's worth my farther had to have extensive facial reconstruction surgery after an unprovoked dog attack in his youth, I would love for you to tell him his fear is irrational and if he were to just bend down avert his eyes etc. etc.  

I was bitten in the face by my own dog when I was about 4-5 years old.  It was totally my fault.  I shovd my face in his food bowl.  I needed stiches.  Doesn't sound nearly as bad as your father's injuries, but I was just a kid.  Somehow, it didn't lead to any fears of phobias about dogs (obviosuly!).  I think these things are a combination of trauma, other life expereiences, and genetics.

I used to regularly look after a Malinois and a German Sheppard sometimes for months on end, lovely animals and the softest of the soft with everybody - now to tell me that a normal human response to those two animals bounding towards them wouldn't be slight trepidation then I think you are slightly delusional.

I agree.  I love sheppards and malinois, and I have found nearly all I encounter to be sweet and intelligent and amazing.  But if they would running toward me, depending on theri posture, attitude, and so forth, they might well scare me.  That would not, however, lead me to insist that they always be on leash and at heel at all times, especially in legal off leash areas.

Guess what, I just ensured they were kept on a leash or close heel unless we were in open fields with no animal or human in sight - problem mostly solved, however if somebody were to say do you mind just making it sit whilst I come past on the path I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to accommodate the other persons needs - it is my choice to be in that location with a dog, not theirs. 

We totally agree here again.  What you describe is exactly what I do with my own dogs.  I let her run free as much as possible where legal, but I'm happy to put her on leash when it makes sense. The few times it has happened, I always put her on leash when people ask nicely and with obvious good reason.  However, in legal off leash areas, when people have occasionally shouted, "Put you dog on a leash!" or "Why isn't your God damned dog on a leash!" when she was doing nothing more than nosing around and wagging her tail, well, I told those people to go f**k themselves, as they deserved.  I also put her on leash in the country when her own safety is concerned, such as passing moving tractors or logging machines, large groups of horse riders, and so on. 

FFS.

What if it was someone else's kid? I suspect the dog and you would be in very hot water with the parents if you took the "shouldn't have put their hand in the bowl" attitude.

Kids do stupid things and without wrapping them up in cotton wool, there are precautions that can be taken to prevent injury to them, like training the dog to understand that if little Bruno pretends he's a dog and moves in on their food then they just have to sit back instead of taking his face off.

Dogs can be trained. I grew up with a big, show line Labrador who would hoover food in a nanosecond and I was told very seriously by my parents never to try to remove a bone from him. My mum's best friend bred Rottweilers and as a child I was always amazed that I could demand their bone and they'd just give it to me then sit drooling hopefully.

The retriever in the case of my acquaintances I mentioned in the other thread was lifted by the police and put down. The owners escaped prosecution, but not by much. The dog was on the surface inoffensive but it was unsocialised and wasn't interactive, and I wasn't exactly surprised when I heard about the attack. Goodness knows what their kid looks like now. I hope he is OK with dogs as they have a much bigger dog now. 

I once knew a Newfoundland who almost certainly ate the neighbours Yorkshire terrier. The terrier had a habit of going under the garden fence to nip and harass the Newfie until one day it vanished. My sympathies are entirely with the Newfie on this one. His name was Bruno.

I agree with everythiung you wrote.

I also think Yorshire terrier tastes goooodddddd.

Fixed that for you.

Always love this video of wolves greeting a familiar caretaker at a zoo. Amazing how social they are with humans.

youtube.com/watch?v=3hdUCzbCuYk&